[pwrbkdude]

Planning to get a "good" lens in the next couple of months for landscape photography. I figure stepping up to a f2.8 lens would be a smart thing to do. Overall this lens has the benefits I would like to have.... Image Stabilization and f2.8. Anyone have any thoughts on this lens, or have a recommendation for a similar lens that is less expensive? Thanks in advance! -Dan

[Steve]

Why do you need a f2.8 and IS for landscape, surely you'll want to shoot using a bigger depth of field? I would say that if landscape is your main interest a good tripod would be more valuable than F2.8

I swear by my Canon 17-40L F4 USM. Its a bargain for the price.

[_MB_]

I'd agree large aperture and IS are an irrelevance for landscapes, unless you like taking them at night from a moving car!

As a walkabout do it all lens it looks ideal however.

[pwrbkdude]

well i tend to shoot and dusk and at night frequently, and on long exposures even with a tripod sometimes there are small amounts of shake, so that is the main reason for desiring IS.

I am also thinking of a nice long lens for wildlife photography, and on that lends USM and IS are almost a requirement from what I understand???

Sorry for being a bit of a n00b... I've always just shot for the fun of it, but now am taking it as a bit more serious hobby as everyone keeps telling me I should do something with my photos!

[P-E]

I've no experience of the 17-55 but from what I've read it does appear to suffer from dust getting inside.....as far as I'm aware it's not weather sealed.

My first thoughts would be the 17-40L f4 as Steve mentions above which is a highly recommended lens......this is weather sealed but will need a UV filter to complete the sealing.

[_MB_]

Re the long lens it very much depends on what kind of wildlife you're approaching/are approaching you and how tolerant they are.

I used to have a 300 f2.8 lens with no IS and noisy autofocus which didn't seem to bother birds and mammals particularly but I can easily see it being an issue with some species although how this compares to the effect of what appears like a gigantic eye to the creature being photographed... I don't know. They help for sure but if you have an opportunity to buy a non IS, non USM lens for a good price, seriously consider it.

What tripod do you have? If it is not sturdy enough to hold the weight of your camera then replacing it may be a cheaper option than buying a new lens.

[Steve]

No problem with being a nOOb, we all started somewhere and keep learning every day. Asking questions is the best way to find answers and learn

IS will not help you for long exposures, its there to help eliminate camera shake from slow shutter speeds when hand holding. Its not capable of stopping camera shake on a time exposure shot take from a tripod, in fact with only a few exceptions Canon recommends switching off IS when shooting from a Tripod.

To solve the issue you simply need a better, more sturdy tripod and use either remote shutter release or the timer function on the camera. Both of these tips will totally remove the shake induced by you manually pressing the shutter release button.

To further reduce the possibility of introducing movement, also look to see if your camera has mirror lock up, if it does use that as well. this will stop any vibrations from the mirror being moved out of the way as the sensor captures the image.

If you are shooting landscapes at dusk, you'll need to use longer shutter times if you wish to maintain control of the final results and have a large depth of field, there simply is no short cuts for that.

IS comes into its own when you are shooting at longer lengths...so for the wildlife shooting hand held it can be really effective.

USM is the type of motor to drive the autofocus mechanisms in Canon lenses. Its their top option and USM usually means that lenses will focus very fast and silently. It will have little effect on the quality of the shot but could (especially with wildlife) mean the difference between getting and missing a shot.

Hope that helps a little

[pwrbkdude]

You guys rock!

I mainly use the 18-55 kit lens that came with my Rebel XT and that is my usual lens for landscape work. I find that it lacks sharpness, and that is what I am trying to find truly, to have sharper results. A little wider might be nice too.

My other lens is a really cheap piece of **** Sigma 70-300 with Macro. Works great for flowers, etc. But last fall I came upon several loons floating down a river at dusk. 300mm wasn't really close enough to fill the frame, and with the shutter speed required at dusk, there was too much vibration and the resulting frames, well, sucked.

I don't really have a ton of money to spend, and those are my situations! Maybe that will allow for better advice???? By the way, this is by far the best photo forum I have come across!

[silkstone]

I'll add my vote for the 17-40 f/4L. It's a superb lens that will be even more useful if you ever want to move to full-frame. It's also weatherproof.

With the good high-ISO performance of the latest cameras, a fast lens isn't as important as it was. After all, f/2.8 to f/4 is only the difference between ISO 100 and 200. An f/2.8 lens will also be larger and heavier (assuming the same image circle), and more expensive.

I love IS but it isn't so necessary at shorter focal lengths, and on a tripod you're supposed to switch it off (although I don't). It comes into its own above about 100mm, and if you can run to it I'd strongly recommend the Canon 70-300 IS. Longer than 300mm and you're really into big bucks for something decent, and you may need a yak.

[_MB_]

300mm on an Xti is nearly equivalent to 500mm effective focal length, which was and still is a common focal length of wildlife photographers when everything was film based.

There's nothing wrong with using a 70-300 cheap zoom to begin with. I used a Sigma 135-400 for a long time and before that a manual 500mm f8 mirror lens. Were the loons aware of you and consequently manoeuvring further into the river to maintain a good distance? If so that's not an equipment problem, it's a stalking problem.

If you've got the cash then by all means go out and buy a 500f4 L but like you said, you don't and I'm just trying to make sure you don't run before you can walk. Large aperture teles are hard work. They're heavy, you're working with vanishingly small depth of field when photographing near subjects, even the modern advantages listed above don't guarantee good results. I could get good results from mine but it was time consuming and tiring so I sold the lens and bought some binoculars instead

So yeah. Think about it seriously is all I'm saying

[pwrbkdude]

ok, so the 17-40L kinda sounds like the way to go. No one anywhere I can find really has anything bad to say about it, and it is generally "affordable". Do you folks normally have something to cover say the 40-70 or 40-100 range?

[silkstone]

I have a Tamron 18-200 which is a great general purpose lens, and the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I've never really found the need for anything between 50 and 70 - in Ye Olde Days (before decent zooms) you'd have had a 50 and something like 80.

[KenCo]

I can't give you a detailed review as I don't feel I know enough about photography to do so but.....I own the 17-55 f2.8 is usm and had to think long and hard over this and the 17-40L usm. I shoot mainly landscapes but wanted to try more portraits and maybe even weddings and it's that, that swayed me in the end to buy the 17-55. I done a lot of reading and did find some who were not happy with the 17-40 and those not happy with the 17-55 only really complained about the price and lack of hood included in said price.
The build quality compared to the 17-40 is noticeable (apparently, as I don't and never have owned one...Going straight from the kit lens like yourself) However weather sealing is lacking but only useful if your camera has it too though I haven't noticed any dust issues as of yet. Also, the Image stabilization DOES work on tripod, as it is the new generation IS (Just quoting what i've read) I have IS switched on at all times (even when not needed) on both the 17-55 & 70-200. There are problems with flare, again though, I got as much flare in similar circumstances with the kit lens. Sharpness though is amazing, I was quite happy with the kit lens really but once you try a lens of this quality you will wonder how you got along with the kit lens.....Just amazing!
If you are considering going full frame at some point, this lens won't fit....EFS only! and based on that i'd choose the 17-40. If you'd like to shoot indoors/low light conditions.....then F2.8 And IS as well as an extra 15mm is the way to go.
I have never tried the 17-40 but am more than happy with what I have now and if I had to do it again I would.

A couple of reviews for you.

(*Mod comment* - Sorry Ken, links to competing sites are against Pixalo policy.)

I'm sure if you do a search on Google for comparison shots from both lenses may help.

[KenCo]

Sorry guys.

[_MB_]

I notice there are no reviews of the 17-55 on Pixalo - if you really must remove information from other sites would it not be at least worth replacing it with some own brand stuff?